No, Thank You. I Don’t Want A Gender Card.

Conservative women neither want nor need a gender card, yet: some seem hell-bent on forcing one upon us. It is one thing to correctly point out blatant sexism and the outright misogyny of the Left, particularly that of the so-called feminist Left. But it’s quite another to make up sexism out of whole cloth. Which is exactly what has happened recently, in regards to Christine O’Donnell.

The first to enter the “let’s invent an -ism where none actually exists” fray was The New Agenda. At least they are honest enough to admit that their entire goal is a new form of gender identity politics. Anna Belle Pfau wrote:

Delaware has never elected a female senator. The state is among seven of the original thirteen states that have never been represented in the Senate by a woman. Delaware may get its first real shot at correcting this oversight should polls bear out in the primary between Christine O’Donnell and Mike Castle today.

This oversight? Yes, because that is the entire basis of what we should look for in a candidate: a “historic” first. That’s worked out so well in the presidency, hasn’t it? She then went on finding things “fishy” and magically discerning that phrases like “Perspective, Boys, Perspective”and “My mistake, fellas.” were “typical insider boys’ club-style of talking over a woman’s head.” I hate to inform Miss Pfau, but those aren’t very big words and aren’t over my head, girly as it is.

Next, upon O’Donnell’s primary win, Karl Rove, whose job is to politically opine, pointed out some things regarding O’Donnell’s candidacy that might cause a bit of a strategic problem garnering a win. Everything he said, while I may not agree, was arguably valid. The gender card was immediately played and he was accused of sexism. Sadly, it was played not by the usual suspects: the professional grievance mongering, victimhood reveling Feminist Left. It was played by the Right, with Jeri Thompson being the first to go all-in. That surprised me because I’m generally in agreement with Jeri Thompson, who is clever as all get-out, 99% of the time.

The difference here is that once the primary was over, the political elites in Washington stood by their men. Why won’t they do it for the woman?

Gee, I do seem to remember them standing by Carly Fiorina over Chuck Devore, a man. And Meg Whitman over Poizner, also a man. It also should not have to be explained that merely disagreeing with someone and thinking she’s a lousy candidate is not sexist. Why even consider gender? Why is that the first thing to latch onto? Considering her gender as a factor actually IS sexist.

It got worse from there, which I found infuriating. The more I read, the more I scowled which is totally not cute. This time it’s personal and for that, they must pay. Moreover, the last thing we should want or need is a new form of gender identity politics. But, it kept coming. Day after day.

After Jeri Thompson, came Peggy Nance at AOL.com telling GOP men to grow up. Yes, she sunk so low as to basically accuse anyone — with external genitalia, natch — who isn’t particularly fond of O’Donnell of thinking that girls are icky and have cooties. You’ve come a long way, baby!

I think women have got to start getting mad about the way they’re treating her,” Hatch says. “It’s been pretty darn rude and vicious, I’ll tell you. There are some legitimate questions that can naturally come up, but to bring up an eleven-year-old quote? Give me a break.

Oh, really? Why women? Is it because you think that women must automatically think that a man is the bad guy and run to swing our purses at him in uterine solidarity?

However, trying to compare those things to strategic opining by Karl Rove is asinine. Nothing he said was sexist. I may not agree with the time or place wherein he said them, but they were in no way sexist. To claim so, is acting like Eleanor Clift or, worse, Amanda Marcotte (only minus the “edgy” F words), for cripes sake. Acting stupidly (strategically) gets you a beer summit, maybe. But it does not equal sexism.

The Left clearly has disdain for women, which is why I write so often about that. But conservatives are usually the ones who understand that we are equal, yet different, and that’s a good thing. We don’t need to differentiate between women and everyone else. We’ve been correctly saying for the last three decades that affirmative action is insulting to minorities. It is. There is no reason at all that we should now embrace a slightly modified form of it ourselves. The racism card has been over-played and one of the worst results of that is that actual racist acts are now diminished by all the Boy Who Cried Wolf calling. The same will happen here. By inventing sexism where none exists, it harmfully diminishes real acts of sexism. Because, if everything is sexist, then nothing is.

We do not need our own Sexist Card. Conservative women are rising to the top due to the people they are, the beliefs for which they stand, and the convictions that they hold. It is not, nor should it be, because they have a rack and girly bits. Peggy Nance inadvertently and unintentionally belied her own argument in the article referenced earlier, when she said this:

As anyone in public life knows, there are times when people wish they could have been more eloquent or said things differently for a quote here or there.

Exactly. And someone pointing those things out is not doing so out of sexism. That’s politics, baby. When Ines Sainz claimed sexual harassment after entering a male locker room dressed in an outfit so tight that she wouldn’t need to walk through an airport scanner,: I said that the Teachable Moment â„¢ is that if you truly don’t want to be ogled and whistled at, don’t, you know, go into a male locker room sporting a camel toe. The same applies here. If you truly don’t wish to have your policies and your background questioned, don’t enter politics. And for goodness sake, don’t blame it on your estrogen if you do.